Talk:Evolution of fish

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Phylogeny of Cartilaginous and bony fishes regarding new findings

I don't know if it is the right place to ask: What are the consequences on this article of the findings reported in the recently published paper in Nature "A Silurian placoderm with osteichthyan-like marginal jaw bones"? From what I understand from newspaper releases, it could change the current understanding of the apparition of cartilaginous vs bony fishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSolidCosmo (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How wondrously interesting! From what I know, cartilaginous fish are derived from acanthodians, and that placoderms are the most primitive of the gnathostomes.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we just be refering to "fishes" and fish because fish is already plural? CaptainLitty (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence

The first sentence of this page outlines one specific view on what a "fish" is. The fishes are monophyletic, so long as we don't forget that all tetrapods are also lobe-finned fishes. Rather than attempting to convey something like this, though, I suggest we change the first sentence to something like "The evolution of fish does not represent a single event since those groups comprising the fishes are highly diverse, and have populated the earth for more than 500 million years." Also, shouldn't the title of this page be "The evolution of fishes"? Tylersquare (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the lead can be usefully reworded something along those lines, though reliable sources are needed. However I don't think it particularly matters which way the title is worded. Fishes refers specifically to fish species or families, whereas fish can be interpreted as a reference to the generic fish type. "The evolution of fish" occurs more often in Google Scholar. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Fish to tetrapods' section - neck

The statement 'the head is not joined to the shoulder girdle and it has a distinct neck' implies that Acanthostega is the earliest animal featuring a distinct neck. How does it relate to: 1) Mandageria fairfaxi (Johanson & Ahlberg, 1997) ~372Ma, which had a functional neck joint, 2) Tiktaalik ~375Ma (same issue), 3) Tarrasius problematicus ~350Ma (fish with tetrapod-like spine, distinct 5 regions, just like in Ichthyostega), 4) the recent article on placoderms in Science (Trinajstic et al) Science News: Primitive fish could nod but not shake its head, Fossil Musculature of the Most Primitive Jawed Vertebrates. A distinct neck seems to be neither unique nor unprecedented feature in Acanthostega so some update or clarification might be required. Sceptic view (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tips for improving article

This article appears more than a start now, but significant sections are still lacking sufficient (or any) attribution. Additionally, the last few sections seem hastily "tacked on", with no or very little context, and they would likely better be written in prose to clearly describe the significance, rather than potentially arbitrary lists which are prone to unchecked expansion. The "Prehistoric fish" section seems redundant, since most of the article is about prehistoric fish. The lead fails to adequately cover the scope of the article. With some attention and some discretion, I think this could be B or even GA quality material. The following is the output from a Peer Reviewer scan for additional suggestions.

Bot review

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 metres, use 000 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 metres.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 30 cm.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armor (A) (British: armour), armour (B) (American: armor), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), fiber (A) (British: fibre), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), traveled (A) (British: travelled), cosy (B) (American: cozy).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

--Animalparty-- (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over 22 references to the term "primitive" in this article alone....

Before you go traipsing around Wikipedia deleting other editors' references to "primitive", don't you think you should work on your own articles? You've deleted the "primitive fishes" template, and other references to the term "primitive" from numerous articles (13+/-) I've edited and made the following statements:

  • Remove category for "primitive" fish. These are not primitive fish. They are remarkable advanced. Don't you mean Category:Living fossils.
  • the term "primitive" is misleading and can confuse naive readers
  • These fish may retain "primitive characteristics", that is early characteristics, but they are highly sophisticated fish
  • primitive? They are a highly sophisticated fish!

You live in a glass house, Epipelagic. AtsmeWills☯ talk 23:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Atsme, is not that the word "primitive" cannot be used usefully in fish articles. The problem is that the specific concept of "primitive fish" does not lend itself to the precision required for a category or a template. It seems that none of the considerable time editors have spent trying to clarify this for you has borne fruit. All I can suggest at this stage is that you read the article Primitive (phylogenetics), and reflect carefully on it. Most of the time when you were talking about "primitive fish" you were talking about living fossils. That does lend itself to categorisation, and indeed there is a category called Category:Living fossils. So you don't need to talk about "primitive fish". Another use of the word "primitive" is as an adjective indicating fish that are basal or ancient or early in the evolutionary process. That is a legitimate use, and the article on the evolution of fish uses the term in that sense. However, given the confusions you are demonstrating some people experience in this context, it might make things clearer to use adjectives like "ancient" or "early" instead. Another unfortunate conclusion that might be drawn from the use of the word "primitive" is that the fish are somehow simple or unsophisticated. It's time for you now to stop trying to endlessly muddy the waters and see if you can contribute less confrontationally and more constructively. I really don't want to waste more time on this. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Fish with tetrapod-like features

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the recently added table under Evolution of fish#Fish with tetrapod-like features by User:Sceptic view strikes me as arbitrary and potentially original synthesis. First, what is the purpose of the table? Having sarcopterygians and actinopterygians on the same table and saying they both share tetrapod-like traits obscures the fact that sarcopterygians gave rise to tetrapods (so it's unsurprising that a mosaic of traits occur in non-tetrapod predecessors), while any traits in ray-finned fishes are purely convergent. Secondly, although some of the entries are referenced, the construction of the table and the inclusion of species may be beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Whose opinion of "tetrapod-like" are we using, and why these 11 categories? How close does a fish's feature need to be to be on the list? The last entry (Chelidonichthys cuculus) seems especially shoehorned into the list: yes it has some free pectoral fin rays, but whether they are "adapted for walking" needs verification, and I don't think they are considered "distal radial bones", at least not in the lobe-finned sense of pertaining to the radius. Ideally, the only species in the table- if it is to stay- should be ones for which reliable sources have explicitly compared them to tetrapods, and the characteristics should be those that are reliably sourced as tetrapod-like. One could think of a number of additional species that marginally meet one or more of the characteristics (e.g. the Walking catfish also ventures onto land), but an ongoing list or table may run into trivial territory unless accompanied by textual explanation. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree. I personally would like to:
  • See some reference for a similar table or list of tetrapod-like features in fish explicitly related to tetrapod evolution
  • Restrict it (therefore) to sarcopterygians
  • Move it to Evolution of tetrapods
--cyclopiaspeak! 13:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page is devoted to evolution of fish in general and not just to evolution of some selected species from the past. Tetrapod-like features in fish are remarkable, not only in extint but also in extant taxa. So what would be the point in removing all but sarcopterygians from the list? Most of us can learn at school that sarcopterygians shared some common traits with tetrapods, but few teachers have enough time to focus on living fish that walk, jump and spend some substantial amount of time on land. As you've mentioned, few people bother to assemble such lists. If we remove such interesting facts from online encyclopedia only those really interested will have the knowledge of them. Besides, the Lobed-finned fishes section focuses on evolution of sarcopterygians into tetrapods. The section on fish with tetrapod-like features is related to all remarkable fish with such traits. Removing from the list all but sarcopterygians would be as weird and pointless as removing sarcopterygians only.Sceptic view (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tetrapod-like features are of interest, in an article about evolution of fish, if they have some evolutionary relationships with tetrapod evolution. This applies therefore only to the ancestors of tetrapods, that is sarcopterygians. In other lineages, such features popped out independently by convergent evolution, and as such are of little interest in an evolutionary context (unless we're talking explicitly about convergent evolution) - that they are shared by tetrapods is basically an evolutionary accident. Also for this reason, all of this is jolly good in an article about the evolution of tetrapods, not so much about the evolution of fish.--cyclopiaspeak! 13:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the cleverest person out there and, frankly speaking, I don't quite get it. Tetrapod-like features in fish are of interest in an article about evolution of fish because that's how we devide vertebrates: into fish and tetrapods. What else shall we compare fish to if not to their sister group? Tetrapod-like fish have always existed and, as species with such cross-group characterists, they are always of evolutionary interest. And if we want to be very precise and go into details we might well kick out all species from the list, because tetrapod tracks from Zachelmie predate most if not all elpistostegalians (Panderichthys by some 17my, Tiktaalik by some 22my and rhizodont Sauripterus by at least 25my). I have plans to make a similar list for tetrapods with fish-like features but from your reasoning it turns out that there is no room for such a list in an article on evolution of tetrapods because it should apply only to those tetrapods which are ancestors of fish - that is none. In other words what you say is that extant tetrapods with fish-like features and extant fish with tetrapod-like features are of little evolutionary interest even though fish and tetrapods are sister groups. And, according to you, convergence or any new cross-group traits of little evolutionary interest... hmmm. I'm trying to get your point, but I really can't. Sceptic view (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I wasn't that clear probably. Your rhetorical question What else shall we compare fish to if not to their sister group? is absolutely correct. The point is that fish, as a whole, are not the sister group to tetrapoda. Sarcopterygians are. Thus, tetrapod-like features in sarcopterygians are somehow likely to be homologous, while tetrapod-like features in non-sarcopterygian fishes are certainly either analogous, or common features shared by all vertebrates (in which case they are not exactly interesting in this comparison). In other words. If sarcopterygians show (say) air breathing, this is interesting evolutonarily because this is a tetrapod-like feature that arises in the clade of tetrapod ancestors, and thus it is possibly a common feature of both groups that tetrapods retained and built upon. If an actinopterygian evolves air breathing, it did it completely independently from the tetrapod evolutionary tree: they just happened to find the same solution to the same problem, but it says nothing on the evolution of tetrapods. Is it clearer now?--cyclopiaspeak! 15:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sceptic view: While others and I may agree with your opinion that "Tetrapod-like features in fish are remarkable", our opinions are ultimately irrelevant. Unsourced promotion of opinions, as well as the original synthesis (novel interpretation) of published material, violates Wikipedia's policies of neutrality, due-weight, and no original research. Unless the entire list or at least the tetrapod-like traits are reliably sourced (e.g. "Smith (2001) lists these 11 traits as key tetrapod characteristics") the appearance is that you alone are advancing the view that all of these species and/or their traits are remarkable for their supposed tetrapod-like nature; assertions which may never have been explicitly made in reliable sources, and thus the list appears to be original synthesis. The facts themselves are certainly appropriate in each species' article, but combining them in a novel fashion to reach a conclusion(?) unsupported by sources is synthesis. If you're concerned that interesting behavior or anatomy is not being highlighted, you might expand coverage in relevant sections of Fish locomotion or Diversity of fish. It's fine to say something like "the Zob fish ventures onto land", or even "The Zob fish is a classic, textbook example of a tetrapod-like fish (Smith, 1980)," but it would be synthesis and non-neutral to say (or imply) "The Zob fish interestingly resembles tetrapods because it ventures onto land" without any citation. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Animalparty:That might be a good idea. I'll move the section to Fish locomotion leaving just a link in a section on sarcopterygians in this article and maybe a link in Diversity of fish. Sceptic view (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This table does not sit well in this article, which already has a large section on tetrapods. If the main point of the table is merely that some sarcopterygians have some tetrapod-like features, then that can be expressed more clearly in a short paragraph. In my view, the table should either be deleted, or should be rewritten more concisely as prose and moved either to Sarcopterygii or Evolution of tetrapods. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think a compact table could be interesting enough (perhaps even as a separate article), but I agree with the rest of Epipelagic. It seems there is no consensus to keep the current table as it is.--cyclopiaspeak! 21:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Love This Article

Guys and girls, fantastic job. I was tired of the cop out stub before that just relegated the evolution of "fish" to articles on each and every clade. This is great in that it gives reader a comprehensive idea of all the steps in the evolution of fish. So long as this article contains the information that it does on "tetrapods", I think it does well. Tetrapods are just weird fish. And I think this article is careful to not just focus on the word "fish" from what we understand fish to be in terms of evolution! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:AB82:B2A0:5567:4F17:C3C5:52FD (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I am impressed with this article in both its comprehensiveness and citation. Not only are the facts backed up by close to one hundred and fifty reliable, accurate sources in the form of academic journals and books, but the sources are also neatly organized with working links. The article provides relevant information without bias, personal opinion, or unreliable claims; nothing was distracting and everything was in reasonable chronological order while being easy to understand.In addition, I found the diagrams, charts, and illustrations to be helpful and informative. Bf255 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)bf255[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Evolution of fish. 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) 08:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Evolution of fish. 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) 23:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox issue

Something is wrong with the taxobox and its making the page a mess. I don't have the expertise to fix it. Is it messed up for others? Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Problems caused at {{Paraphyletic group}} due to {{Template for discussion/dated}} template being added. I have reformatted. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling that had something to do with it. Thanks!! Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 02:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neoteny

I deleted the "clarification required " of the value of the article.... this was not the intended meaning but it is clear it is the only function. I think that it is more likely to have lost one thing then to have gained many. Lollipop (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. a baby sometimes is born with 0 legs but rarely with 4 legs, 2 wings , a belly pouch, and spiraling horns. Such would be comparable to the many adaptations gained by the tunicates tunicates and lost by the vertebrates gettebit it rats. i Lollipop (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly well explained revert

This has gone far enough, nothing more to gained here. (non-admin closure)--Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

@Medeis: Why did you revert this edit? I removed a number of colons which are causing WP:LINT errors (which are used incorrectly, separate to the lint concern). Can you explain what it was you were trying to preserve? --Izno (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain why they reverted. They reverted because they were trying to restore the integrity of the article. You still haven't even looked at the consequences of your edit, have you? Please don't make edits like this without checking the outcome. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Epipelagic: How about you a) tone it down and b) ping me next time. I didn't look at the consequences, but "restore formatting" doesn't evidence anything wrong with the actual display of the article. I saw in retrospect solely in the diff one issue with what I had done in the infobox. Was there anything else? I don't want to, and didn't want to then, repeat the edit without a verification that that was the only thing wrong, which is, shocking, why I left a note on the talk page. --Izno (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you totally screw up a page, don't bother to check the consequences of your edit, imply you didn't even have that responsibility, and now you have started the ping and moan routine with Epipelagic, who told you exactly what you did wrong, as well? And here my simply fixing your mess without berating for it was based on my assumption you were acting in good faith, not unselfcritical arrogance. I suggest you file an ANI if its a trouting you want, Izno. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Medeis: What the fuck? I implied no such thing. And he didn't tell me what's wrong. I still have no idea what exactly ya'll have an issue with. I'm happy to reinstate the edit with what I think is the fix, but you all are being obtuse as shit for no obvious reason. No, I'm not looking for noticeboard action. Yes, it was good faith. What was wrong with the page? Briefly describe the issue, please, so that I don't get it wrong the second time. And yes, I requested a ping because I'm not watching the page--I was stopping by to gnome some lint. I'm happy to take a stab at making the correct edit if you would rather I try to guess at what you and he thought was wrong, or I can make the definitely-correct edit if you tell me. --Izno (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Izno, do you really need "pinging" to follow threads you initiate yourself? Exactly what should I "tone down"? I assume it was not your intention to vandalise this article. But are you saying, even now, that you still don't realize what you did? If I have to spell it out for you, what does that suggest? I see on your user page you are ambitious to be an administrator. That's frightening. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Hint: look at the article before and after your edit) --Epipelagic (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2018 (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.
Oh boy. Now, which indenting are you talking about? --Izno (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hint: look at the article before and after your edit. Indents are to do with the spacing between the border and the start of new text lines. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As it happens, I removed a lot of indenting. Could you clarify which? It's a really simple concept. I would really like to get to where you're happy and where I'm happy, but "go look at the delta" is not helpful. --Izno (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well don't remove the indenting. It's there for aesthetic reasons and to make it easier to read. It's also there to group items in logical categories. For example, under "Included groups" are Ray-finned fish and Lobe-finned fish. These are both subcategories of Bony fish, so they need deeper indenting than Bony fish. If there are code changes needed to keep the code compliant with future web standards and you don't know how to retain indenting, then please leave the changes to someone who does. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's the feedback I needed. I'll poke my recent edit, since I do know how to make the change. (Aside: I do not agree with your reasons for indenting but I don't care enough to argue over them--the style you're employing here is broadly non-standard and certainly doesn't mean anything obvious. But as I said, I don't want to argue. ;)
Your comments seem to concern only the table indenting. Are any of the other changes at issue? --Izno (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just stop damaging the article and do this tiresome blustering and blundering somewhere else. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Placoderms

This section's sources are poorly sited. The statement "...they are ultimately ancestal to modern vertebrates." seems to be taken out of no where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nils Horgby (talk • contribs) 08:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put in two references from Placoderm that refer to placoderms being ancestral to gnathostome vertebrates.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution_of_fish"