DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Clownfish

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Featured articleClownfish is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 4, 2025.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2025Good article nomineeListed
July 13, 2025Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Unclear why this page was moved to Clownfish

[edit]

I note that this article was moved from Amphiprioninae to Clownfish by Loopy30 in October 2022 with the summary "Subfamily no longer recignized. Swap with common name.". It is not clear to me what has changed to prompt this move, and I would consider from the move discussion above from 2019 that Anemonefish is the more correct common name with a stronger consensus than clownfish - which only refers to two of the species.

@Loopy30: please could you elaborate on the classification of the subfamily, the article remains unchanged in referencing this.

More broadly, if we are to use a common name here, is the consensus still that Anemonefish is more appropriate? |→ Spaully ~talk~  11:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the most recent phylogeny of damselfish by Tang et al (2021), Amphiprioninae was no longer recognised. The genus Premnas was synonymized to Amphiprion and this combined genus then placed in the subfamily Pomacentrinae. As the subfamily name appeared to no longer be in use, the page was moved to the first common name listed in the article lede and changes were made to reflect this new taxonomy.
However, since the standard reference used by the project for taxa above genus level (FotW 5e) recognizes the subfamily Amphiprioninae (as of 2016), and the project standard taxonomy for genus and below (FishBase) still currently recognises the genus Premnas, the following day I undid any taxonomic changes I had made in the article. Given the previous RM discussion here in May 2019, it would appear that my Oct 2022 move of the page title was also too hasty and should have been reversed and discussed here first.
We now have four possible page titles for this article:
  • Amphiprioninae - currently still supported by project taxonomy refs
  • Amphiprion - most up-to-date taxonomic classification
  • Clownfish - most "popular" common name
  • Anemonefish - most "correct" common name
A new RM may now be necessary to reach consensus on the most appropriate page title. Loopy30 (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tang does recognize Amphiprionini as a (monotypic) tribe. While Catalog of Fishes is apparently following Tang (Premnas is listed as a synonym of Amphiprion, and Amphiprion is placed in subfamily Pomacentrinae), Catalog of Fishes is not a source we usually follow for taxonomy. Fishbase is placing Premnas and Amphiprion in Pomacentrinae. I'm not sure we should wait for a 6th edition of FotW to stop recognizing Amphiprioninae, but I'd feel better about deprecating Amphiprioninae if Fishbase synonymized Premnas (at which point a monotypic tribe/subfamily wouldn't really be a contender for the article title). Plantdrew (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Loopy30 and Plantdrew, I rewrote the article. Would like your comments on the Taxonomy section. Its seems Amphiprioninae is still used in the literature. LittleJerry (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is being used in the literature. I get 259 results on Google Scholar for Amphiprioninae since 2021, and 799 when a date range isn't specified, but I saw nothing in the first 6 pages of post-2021 results about taxonomy or systematics (lots of stuff about anemone symbiosis, behavior or ecology).
None of the taxonbar databases for Amphiprion place it in Amphiprioninae instead of Pomacentrinae (but most don't include subfamilies for Pomacentridae at all). Of the taxonbar links for Amphiprioninae, Wikispecies is the only one that accepts the subfamily.
Biologists who aren't systematists/taxonomists have little reason to care about minor ranks (subfamilies/tribes). Even for systematists and taxonomists, there is not that much enthusiasm for recognizing minor ranks that are monotypic and with Premnas as a synonym, the subfamily or tribe is monotypic.
Google Scholar has just 38 results for Amphiprioninae prior to 2001, with Wikipedia launching in early 2001. I'm pretty concerned that Wikipedia may be driving the (non-systematic/taxonomist) recent literature to be using Amphiprioninae. Some journals encourage authors to use minor ranks in titles or abstracts (Journal of Ichthyology appears to do this), and subsequent articles which cite prior articles with Amphiprioninae in the title can show up on Scholar even if the subsequent articles never mention Amphiprioninae outside of the citations. Plantdrew (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Oct 2024, the WP:FISH project has adopted Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes (ECoF) as the new standard taxonomy of fish taxa for all ranks from order and below. As ECoF does not accept Amphiprioninae, and classifies the genus Amphiprion in the subfamily Pomacentrinae, both the lede and taxobox of the article should now be amended to follow that source. Also, an RM discussion may still be desired to determine/confirm the best page title, with the possible choices now reduced to three (Amphiprion, Clownfish, Anemonefish). Loopy30 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Amphiprionini recognized by the ECof? LittleJerry (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ECoF doesn't recognize tribes at all, as far as I can tell. That is something that WikiProject Fishes should discuss. Plantdrew (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Territory mark

[edit]

How do the tropical fish clownfish mark their territory? 2A00:1BB8:118:3468:A5F0:9355:8A2A:8AD2 (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2025 (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.

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

Nominator: LittleJerry (talk · contribs) 20:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • some wikilinks needed: junior synonym, cladogram, papers
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • which was coined by Marcus Elieser Bloch and Johann Gottlob Theaenus Schneider in 1801. – Based on which species? And which is the type species?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clownfish lineage diverged from other living damselfishes – confusing, as they did not diverge from any living species.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • one centred on the Malay Archipelago and later in the waters of the western Indian Ocean – you are talking about two separate radiations here, right? So insert "another" (and another later in the waters of …"
Done.
  • High amounts of interbreeding between species through their evolutionary history. – verb missing
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • with A. biaculeatus being in a monotypic clade close to percula – this is a bit technical, you should explain some terms or rephrase. Also, why do you give detail for this particular clade, and not others? Is it more relevant than the other clades for some reason?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • with two species Amphiprion chrysopterus and Amphiprion latezonatus bring monotypic clades and A. biaculeatus under the percula clade – I can guess what you mean but this needs rephrasing and should be much clearer. Also, explain or avoid "monotypic".
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "paraphyletic" should also come with explanation.
Gone now. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You talk about the clades, but you do not say which species are within what clade. I would add the clades as labels to the respective branches of the cladogram. This should be fine because the content of the clades is explicitly listed in the paper that you cite for the cladogram.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the article, you use the scientific names to refer to the species. However, the Wikipedia articles on those species use the common name; shouldn't we do the same in this article?
Some of the articles use the scientific name as the title, others use the common name but start with the specific name. I found it better to use the scientific names especially since they often have multiple common names. We could get more opinions. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: In the cladogram, I would have expected to see the common names used in the linked articles, rather than following an external source. Not sure if you should change that, and your choice seems solid, but I am surprised here.
  • Females are larger than males – I assume that females are larger in all species; can we have an idea how much larger? Twice as large? I am confused by
This is clarified in Social Structure. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the smallest individuals in a group are only 6 mm – I am confused by this: These smallest individuals would be the juveniles after they join a group? And since you give an exact value (6 mm), what species do you talk about? It certainly wouldn't be the same value for all the species? Please check if you are possibly citing a case study that should not be generalized.
Added range. The source doesn't specify species. The smallest members are juveniles/non-breeding individuals that join a group as detailed in Social Structure. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • suborbital area – "area below the eyes" to be less technical?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dorsal fin has 10 spines and 14–20 soft rays – Are the spines at the front and the soft rays at the rear of the fin? I would point that out.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have a single nostril with an arrow-shaped olfactory rosette positioned around the midline of the olfactory cavity. – Too technical, please explain a bit more. What is an olfactory rosette? What is the olfactory cavity? Where on the snout is the nostril located?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vertical bar formation starts at the front – With "starts", you mean during ontogeny?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • a "Misbar" (incomplete vertical bars) morph, and a "golden" morph – any reason why "Misbar" is capitalized and "golden" is not?
That's what they do in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the source and they have both in upper case (Golden and Misbar). However, convention in Wikipedia is to write animal names in lower case, so you might go with "golden" and "misbar". But it needs to be consistent. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2024 study found evidence for this function as A. ocellaris can distinguish between individuals of different bar numbers.[28] Merilata and colleagues (2018) dispute this, noting the geographic and ecological overlap between the similar-looking A. percula and A. ocellaris. – How can the older paper contradict the more recent one? Shouldn't you list the argument in chronological order?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour and Ecology

  • clownfish may forage as far as 20 m2 (220 sq ft) of ocean floor away from their anemone – m2 is an area, not a distance. You could write "Clownfish may forage in an area as large as 20 m2 of ocean floor around their anemone" or something like that.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not fixed, you still have words like "far" which do not make sense when you talk about an area. Why not just use my suggested wording? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also evidence of clownfish giving food to their anemone hosts. – Not sure what that means. Are they actively feeding the anemones? With what?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
later --> latter
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • while nine — A. frenatus, A. chagosensis, A. pacificus, A. fuscocaudatus, A. latifasciatus, A. mccullochi, A. nigripes, A. sebae, and A. biaculeatus — use just one anemone species. – Is a "respectively" missing here, or do they all use the same species?
Clarified
  • R. magnifica can provide extra protection when it pulls all its tentacles inside a soft body. – I don't understand; when it withdraws its tentacles, how can that improve protection for the clownfish?
The clownfish goes inside too. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please mention that, otherwise a reader cannot make sense of it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mucus thickness may also play a role, but this is not clear. – I suggest "but the evidence is ambiguous" for a more encyclopedic wording.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nguyen and colleagues (2023) – I was once told at FAC to avoid this technical notation and write "In 2023, Nguyen and colleagues …" or similar. There are more instances of this in the article.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still see a Frisch and colleagues (2019)
Gone. LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whereas some anemone fish species seem to produce their own protective mucous coating, others may acquire mucus (or biomolecules within) from the sea anemone during an acclimation period" – I am unconvinced that we need a quote here; this could be easily reworded.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • An individual is 20 percent larger than its direct subordinate – "On average"? Does that generally apply to the whole group or is the claim made for a particular species (just checking)?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the above sentence: This raises the obvious question how the fish can maintain this precise gap in sizes. There is a nice explanation in the Buston 2004 that you cite, for A. percula (the last paragraph of "Discussion"): they slow down their growth rate to remain smaller. You go a bit into this later, but I think it is important to mention that growthrate is adjusted. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • in the waters of the Malay Archipelago – this is the result of a single study? If so, we cannot assume that this is consensus; you should write "according to one study" or similar whenever you cite primary sources (the paper you cite is a primary source for this particular information because it is a conclusion made in the paper). To prepare for FAC, I suggest to check the article for this; don't make it look like established knowledge when it is only based on the results of a single paper.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • while a 2025 study found the percula clade to be paraphyletic – Where is the source saying that? It doesn't seem to be paraphyletic in the cladogram?
Clarified. It was paraphyletic in regards to biaculeatus, percula and ocellaris. LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments

  • "Evolution, Development and Ecology of Anemonefishes", p. 286, says something about potential new species (two species were described as recently as 2008 and 2010, and more "hidden" species are expected. I would include a sentence on that.
These are already among the 28 species, A. barberi and A. pacificus. LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you mention the possibly unknown species, mention they would be cryptic species (optically similar or identical to the species they are currently in)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2005 study of an area in the Philippines found that clownfish and anemones were suspect to overfishing, being 60 percent of total catch – I would expect that the "total catch" is only the aquarium trade, not the total catch of all fish; please check.
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clownfish have been popular in the aquarium trade – "is popular"? Or are they not popular anymore?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • increase their need to forage,[81] as well as a decreased reproduction. – not a complete sentence
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversely, a 2015 study suggested that warmer water can increase aerobic exercise in A. biaculeatus juveniles – why "conversely" and not "also" or "furthermore"?
Because it sounds like a postive effect. LittleJerry (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Conservation" section lists "bleaching" as one threat out of several. However, anemone bleaching and bleaching of "their surrounding coral habitat" are probably the "most extreme and largest-scale threats" ("Evolution, Development and Ecology of Anemonefishes", page 287. I think that you should 1) discuss the bleaching before discussing the other threats, 2) make clear that bleaching is probably the most severe threat, 3) and also mention that coral bleaching is also a threat (it is a coral reef species, after all).
The page states that "ocean warming and associated bleaching of anemones and their surrounding coral habitat are likely to be the most extreme and largest-scale threats". Thats why I framed the text like that. Starting with ocean warming. LittleJerry (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read it differently. The text clearly states that "bleaching of anemones and their surrounding coral habitat" is likely the largest threat. Of course, bleaching is caused by ocean warming (that's why they write "and associated bleaching"). The section in which this sentence occurs is called "Anemone bleaching", while there is another section "Ocean warming" for the other direct effects on the clownfish. So the sentence clearly refers to bleaching, not to the other effects of ocean warming. I still think we should clarify that bleaching is the largest threat. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Better? LittleJerry (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. I am reviewing the other rchanges now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did some rearranging and adding. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • By contrast, as many as six species inhabit the waters of Great Barrier Reef. – But is the Great Barrier Reef really the most specious? The book "Evolution, Development and Ecology of Anemonefishes" says on p. 286 that "up to 12 species may co-occur in the same area".
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that's accurate. If you look at their map (fig. 25.2), you see there are several regions with 12 species, and not all of them in Asia. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2025 (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.

Reversion

[edit]

LittleJerry Please explain yourself as to why you reverted. I understand that you want good image layouts on GAs but i've tried to not run past the header lines. I think the image with the Cymothoa is illustrative Anthropophoca (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the mention of colony-living should also be relevant, as i couldn't think of any other damselfish clade that lives in colonies like this. Anthropophoca (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not relevant to anything in the text. This is in the middle of a FAC review so please let me handle this. LittleJerry (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the red sea anemone being moved there was still relevant, since the text does explicitly mention the Red Sea as a limit to clownfish geographical range
But alright, tbf i just wanted to fit that Cymothoa image on the page. Anthropophoca (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry I request that the mention of "clownfish colony" that was also removed in the reverted edit be reimplemented; i think this behavior of colony-keeping rooted in social hierarchy is quite unique within damselfish and would warrant mention in the article. Anthropophoca (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
whether I use the word group or colony doesn't matter. Like I said, please let me handle this. LittleJerry (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why i requested it instead of adding it back in myself. "Colony" has been used in the context of clownfish a few times, as i've cited, so i think it's just a case of nomenclature Anthropophoca (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]